Try asking the following...
RULING
RULING ON PRELIMINARY LEGAL OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED OUT OF TIME G. MENSAH-DATSA (MRS) J. A.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Winneba dated the 4th day of September, 2018 in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter Respondent)against the 2nd Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter Appellant). The Respondent at the hearing of the Appeal raised a Preliminary Legal Objection which was filed on 20th November, 2019.
The Respondent contended that the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant on 21st December, 2018 was filed out of time hence a nullity because the judgment in contention was delivered on 4th September, 2018.
The Appellant is opposed to the preliminary legal objection raised.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that because the judgment was given in contravention of the Finance Lease Act 1993 (PNDCL 331) particularly section 4 (6) the time for filing the Notice of Appeal is not caught by the rules of court.
He prayed the court to dismiss the preliminary legal objection raised.
Counsel relied on the case of NETWORK COMPUTER SYSTEM (NCS) LTD VRS INTELSTAT GLOBAL SALES AND MARKETING LTD [2012] 1 SCGLR 218 holding 2 which states as follows: “The Supreme Court would uphold the contention of the defendant-applicant, that its repeat application in the Supreme Court for the stay of execution of the foreign judgment, could not be disposed of solely on the final or interlocutory nature of the decision of the High Court given on 12 March 2010, refusing the application to set aside its order for the registration of the foreign judgment appealed against on 21 April, 2010 because the order was a nullity as prohibited by section 17 of the Body Corporate (Official Liquidations) Act, 1963 (Act 180). It was therefore made without jurisdiction.
Consequently, want of time, i. e. failure of the Defendant-applicant to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court, refusing the application to set aside the order for registration of the judgment within twenty-one days as required by rule 9 (1) (a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, (C. I. 19) should not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to entertain the repeat application. ”The court reserved the matter of the Appeal in order to determine the Preliminary Legal Objection in order to clear the path to whether or not the Appeal could be entertained.
It is no mystery that an appeal is a creature of statute.
The rules of court are not made